Original Posted By: "William Wynne"
WF2, Scotty, Ray, friends,An important point, that many have been covered many times: The type of firewallwith a shelf that Ford powered planes need is structurally a different situationthat a Corvair and Continental one where the plywood can come all the way up to the top longerons. The latteris reinforced and a lot more rigid in an extreme load. My Piet was original Fordpowered, it had the shelf set up, it was noticibly more rigid when we didmotor mount torsion load tests after the firewall was closed back up to the toplongerons. we did this by applying a 200 ft pound torque load to the mount,I was looking for deflections in tubes in the mount tubes, but noticed that theunsupported upper mount locations on the longerons deflected much more thanthe mount. This could have been fixed with a cross tube in the mount, but I electedto put the plywood back in. Today, if a builder opts for a continentalor a Corvair, there is no reason to have the shelf, the plywood should go allthe way to the top, and the fuselage will undoubtedly be more rigid.Putting the plane on its back is less violent that a sudden stop or a very hardhit. I think the loads from having the airplane roll over its' nose are different,and the wing doesn't have the same deceleration, or impose the same forceon the diagonal cabanes. None of the Piet crashes I have looked at closely had a "perfect impact", theyall hit one wing first. In my accident, you could have used the last 6 ribs onthe right wing again, the fabric as not even cut, and the left wing as a bagof kindling and sawdust on impact. Planes that are spun in do this. Even planesthat are stalled at 15' tend to hit one wing first. a plane with it gear toofar back, or landing with a tailwind is much more likely to impose a symmetricload as it goes over.Again, theory vs observation: saying "The fuselage bracket will shear sidewaysand the wing plane will twist down in a helical vector." is a reasonable soundingtheory, but observation says that the loads don't remove this bracket fromthe longeron, they fail the diagonal cabane first. Any comment that includesthe word "Will" is a statement of certainty, and my experience, absolute predictionslike that don't address all the variables present in something like anaccident, even if a single accident produced a result that looked that way. When a guy like Jack Phillips who has been flying his bird for a long time, decidesthat he is going to put in the required effort to make an improvement tohis plane, an improvement which there is a 98% chance he will never use, It makesme think that there is some good effect of trying to share with other builderssome things I paid a very high price to learn. This isn't ego telling anyonehow smart I am, just the reverse, read part 1 of my cabane and fuel line story,and I have a picture there and directly say that I was doing something stupidthe way my plane was set up. Go back and read my words on the three effectson other peoples lives that I didn't foresee, things you can't just fix withtime, money or an apology. If you spend a few moments considering them as yourwife, parents and friend, then you will have a much better understating ofwhy this isn't a lighthearted theoretical debate on structures to me.-ww.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: shad bell
Builders: Just for my own personal interest, I am going to bring the tools to measure wingincidence and rigging information to Brodhead. I mentioned this before, buthave not heard from anyone else, but I am going to spend some of the time theremeasuring planes. Of particular interest is "The Last Original ", because Iwant to see if BHP decreased the wing incidence on his last plane. I am going to measure the stuff with a smart level working off a full chord profileboard, so it will not be necessary to even level the plane, I can just dothe math. I am also going to pick up the ground AOA number for planes while weare at it. I would like to show a few people how to do this, and have a standardmeasuring system so later data point collection is apples to apples.The CAD drawings done by Bill Church got me looking at this after reading aboutChris Rusch's rigging condition. My book on Riblett airfoils is out on loan rightnow, but staring at the lift curves in Theory of Wing Sections of NACA airfoilswith similar camber distributions to the GA30U-612 makes me think thatthe Riblett airfoil might do better with a lot less incidence. Structures is the hard part of Aerospace Engineering for people with robust graymatter. Basic Aerodynamics that applies to light planes can even be done bymathematical monkeys like me. The calculated numbers are very real world and useful.When looking for a desired angle of incidence, you rearrange the lift formulato solve for Coefficient of lift and stick in your numbers:CL = Pounds of lift / ( .5 (density of air) (speed in feet per second squared)(wing area in square feet)Lift = the flying weight of the plane, lets call it 1150 poundsDensity of air at sea level = .00237feet per second at 75 mph = 110.25 (projected cruise)Piet wing area = 145The Coefficient of lift for the above numbers is .55 You can go right to a liftcurve for the airfoil and look up which angle of attack on the airfoil producesthis CL. I don't have the Riblett book in front of me, and his data was mostlycomputer simulation. Actual wind tunnel data for 6% camber airfoils suggeststhat 2 degrees (measured through the leading edge to trailing edge not theunderside of the wing) might be very close. The goal is to have the plane setso that the fuselage is level at cruise speed. It will fly best in this conditionand it will be easier to trim to fly well.Why would BHP's plans have 3.5 degrees actual incidence? Go back and run throughthe numbers, but look at it for a 62 mph cruise speed plane flying at 1100 pounds.The CL for that condition is .77, and the original airfoil may be makinga number like that at an angle of attack of 3.5 degrees. A few measurements, and a 20 minute flight with a smart level on the front cockpitlongeron and a GPS or calibrated airspeed, and we could have by reverse engineering,the center of a lift curve for the BHP airfoil. A few planes worthof data points, and a new builder could custom tailor the incidence for his planeto have a much better chance of it flying in proper trim from the start.The right incidence varies on different versions of the plane depending on theweight and the cruise speed. Why I want to look at The Last Original is to seeif BHP lowered the incidence because the plane has a much higher cruise speedthan one built to the 1929 plans, (and is also lighter) The formula above isvery well known, and BHP absolutely would have seen, understood and used it. Iown an original set of Flying and Glider Manuals, and it is in there in an articleabout selecting airfoils. Many people who don't like math or numbers still like Pietenpols. This is fine,but I contend that it is a false conclusion to suggest that BHP didn't know anduse math and aero formulas. If you look at the man's life work in things likeelectronics, one can safely conclude he was comfortable with learning, andparticularly testing improvements, often by rapid iterations and modifications,and this is why I suspect the Last Original may have something different forincidence.I have had a number of old breed Piet builders assure me that BHP was not the 'flyingfarmer' image projected by the magazines of the 1930s, that he was muchmore technical and insightful, and the farmer stuff was just editorial spin ofthe day. To my eye, BHP's evolving work further debunks the 'country boy' myth.There are people who actually believe that BHP's contribution to aviation was toprovide them with a flyable airframe that they can decorate with style sensedeveloped from watching Chitty Chitty Bang Bang too many times in an unfortunatechildhood. I am all for people building their creation any way they like,I only object to BHP being recast as Dick Van Dike to support the idea that magicis more important than math. -ww.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 17:57:00 -0700
Builders: Just for my own personal interest, I am going to bring the tools to measure wingincidence and rigging information to Brodhead. I mentioned this before, buthave not heard from anyone else, but I am going to spend some of the time theremeasuring planes. Of particular interest is "The Last Original ", because Iwant to see if BHP decreased the wing incidence on his last plane. I am going to measure the stuff with a smart level working off a full chord profileboard, so it will not be necessary to even level the plane, I can just dothe math. I am also going to pick up the ground AOA number for planes while weare at it. I would like to show a few people how to do this, and have a standardmeasuring system so later data point collection is apples to apples.The CAD drawings done by Bill Church got me looking at this after reading aboutChris Rusch's rigging condition. My book on Riblett airfoils is out on loan rightnow, but staring at the lift curves in Theory of Wing Sections of NACA airfoilswith similar camber distributions to the GA30U-612 makes me think thatthe Riblett airfoil might do better with a lot less incidence. Structures is the hard part of Aerospace Engineering for people with robust graymatter. Basic Aerodynamics that applies to light planes can even be done bymathematical monkeys like me. The calculated numbers are very real world and useful.When looking for a desired angle of incidence, you rearrange the lift formulato solve for Coefficient of lift and stick in your numbers:CL = Pounds of lift / ( .5 (density of air) (speed in feet per second squared)(wing area in square feet)Lift = the flying weight of the plane, lets call it 1150 poundsDensity of air at sea level = .00237feet per second at 75 mph = 110.25 (projected cruise)Piet wing area = 145The Coefficient of lift for the above numbers is .55 You can go right to a liftcurve for the airfoil and look up which angle of attack on the airfoil producesthis CL. I don't have the Riblett book in front of me, and his data was mostlycomputer simulation. Actual wind tunnel data for 6% camber airfoils suggeststhat 2 degrees (measured through the leading edge to trailing edge not theunderside of the wing) might be very close. The goal is to have the plane setso that the fuselage is level at cruise speed. It will fly best in this conditionand it will be easier to trim to fly well.Why would BHP's plans have 3.5 degrees actual incidence? Go back and run throughthe numbers, but look at it for a 62 mph cruise speed plane flying at 1100 pounds.The CL for that condition is .77, and the original airfoil may be makinga number like that at an angle of attack of 3.5 degrees. A few measurements, and a 20 minute flight with a smart level on the front cockpitlongeron and a GPS or calibrated airspeed, and we could have by reverse engineering,the center of a lift curve for the BHP airfoil. A few planes worthof data points, and a new builder could custom tailor the incidence for his planeto have a much better chance of it flying in proper trim from the start.The right incidence varies on different versions of the plane depending on theweight and the cruise speed. Why I want to look at The Last Original is to seeif BHP lowered the incidence because the plane has a much higher cruise speedthan one built to the 1929 plans, (and is also lighter) The formula above isvery well known, and BHP absolutely would have seen, understood and used it. Iown an original set of Flying and Glider Manuals, and it is in there in an articleabout selecting airfoils. Many people who don't like math or numbers still like Pietenpols. This is fine,but I contend that it is a false conclusion to suggest that BHP didn't know anduse math and aero formulas. If you look at the man's life work in things likeelectronics, one can safely conclude he was comfortable with learning, andparticularly testing improvements, often by rapid iterations and modifications,and this is why I suspect the Last Original may have something different forincidence.I have had a number of old breed Piet builders assure me that BHP was not the 'flyingfarmer' image projected by the magazines of the 1930s, that he was muchmore technical and insightful, and the farmer stuff was just editorial spin ofthe day. To my eye, BHP's evolving work further debunks the 'country boy' myth.There are people who actually believe that BHP's contribution to aviation was toprovide them with a flyable airframe that they can decorate with style sensedeveloped from watching Chitty Chitty Bang Bang too many times in an unfortunatechildhood. I am all for people building their creation any way they like,I only object to BHP being recast as Dick Van Dike to support the idea that magicis more important than math. -ww.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 17:57:00 -0700
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "tools"
Builders,I just gathered up a number of photos of the Bell family Pietenpol, mostly from Brodhead 2008-2013, at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2014/07/13/the-be ... lyers/Hats off to Shad and Gary on a great day.-------------------------------------------------------------A link to a collection of Piet stories:http://flycorvair.net/2013/11/28/corvai ... ence-page/. For a link to Pictures of Pietenpols:http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/11/pieten ... red-piets/ .-ww.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Builders,I just gathered up a number of photos of the Bell family Pietenpol, mostly from Brodhead 2008-2013, at this link: http://flycorvair.net/2014/07/13/the-be ... lyers/Hats off to Shad and Gary on a great day.-------------------------------------------------------------A link to a collection of Piet stories:http://flycorvair.net/2013/11/28/corvai ... ence-page/. For a link to Pictures of Pietenpols:http://flycorvair.net/2013/01/11/pieten ... red-piets/ .-ww.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
William,BRILLIANT, sounds like fun and informational. Let me know if you need any help,should be around for most of Brodhead. Should also check the red and clear piet in the museum as well.Honestly, I've kind of always thought of you as what BHP was in his day.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
William,BRILLIANT, sounds like fun and informational. Let me know if you need any help,should be around for most of Brodhead. Should also check the red and clear piet in the museum as well.Honestly, I've kind of always thought of you as what BHP was in his day.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: JOSEPH SWITHIN
Count me in!--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 16:05:53 -0700
Count me in!--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 16:05:53 -0700
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "Ray Krause"
got mine a few days ago too- guess the ice melted!Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
got mine a few days ago too- guess the ice melted!Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "DonkDoug"
I owe an apology to Jon Apfelbaum, truly. We are on a dive trip out of the countryat the moment and I have dozens of emails to catch up on (wi-fi is spottydown here), but I am remiss in not giving Jon the credit for the cover photoon the anniversary edition of the magazine. We knew it would be one of Jon'sphotos on the cover the minute we saw some of the shots that he took in the photoshoot of Dan's airplane.The photo is one in a series that pilot and photographer took, so if the photolooks familiar, just pull out your 2012 EAA calendar and you'll see a similarphoto but the two are different. Our thanks to Jon for making this special issueof the magazine what it is, and definitely something that will be around formany years to come. Perhaps Jon will agree to start working on the cover forthe 100th anniversary issue-?There are one or two other of Jon's photos in the magazine, including one of MattPaxton swinging the hand-carved prop on Dan's airplane.It's raining outside at the moment, but they tell me it doesn't matter if you getwet when you're scuba diving ;o)--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
I owe an apology to Jon Apfelbaum, truly. We are on a dive trip out of the countryat the moment and I have dozens of emails to catch up on (wi-fi is spottydown here), but I am remiss in not giving Jon the credit for the cover photoon the anniversary edition of the magazine. We knew it would be one of Jon'sphotos on the cover the minute we saw some of the shots that he took in the photoshoot of Dan's airplane.The photo is one in a series that pilot and photographer took, so if the photolooks familiar, just pull out your 2012 EAA calendar and you'll see a similarphoto but the two are different. Our thanks to Jon for making this special issueof the magazine what it is, and definitely something that will be around formany years to come. Perhaps Jon will agree to start working on the cover forthe 100th anniversary issue-?There are one or two other of Jon's photos in the magazine, including one of MattPaxton swinging the hand-carved prop on Dan's airplane.It's raining outside at the moment, but they tell me it doesn't matter if you getwet when you're scuba diving ;o)--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "William Wynne"
Did anyone buy it? Thumbs up or down? Buy in stages?--------JohnRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Did anyone buy it? Thumbs up or down? Buy in stages?--------JohnRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: gcardinal(at)comcast.net
Ray,I will be glad to submit the rigging data to the newsletter, and one of the guyscan also put it here on this list. When Ryan and I did the CG work several yearsago, it all went directly into the newsletter for everyone to use. This listlatter played a role in getting new builders to understand the CG info andknow where to get it in printed form from Doc Mosher. Those articles are longer,and were best introduced in a lasting printed format, the rigging info willbe comparatively brief and easier to share.Just as with the CG stuff, the information is just a contribution to the Piet community,for builders of all power plants to use. I spent about $70K at Embry-Riddleand our home is literally lined with bookshelves filled with technicalaviation books going back to the 1920s, all of this was money well spent withthe goal of learning more about flight. But still, I can say that at least halfof everything I have learned about planes in 25 years came from experiencedpeople who just wanted to share what they new with others, the only price tobe paid was being willing to listen, consider and learn. In contrast to all the other social graces I lack, I have always been respectfuland grateful to anyone who is teaching me anything. Still, looking back, itis easy to identify countless times that I failed to fully appreciate the depthor impact some information would later have on my understanding. Most of themen I would like to go back and thank again, are gone now. I am left with emulatingtheir method of sharing what they knew as the only way I can express mygratitude. I learned a lot from many good men, I have a large personal debt topay, I expect it to take the rest of my life.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------A link to a story about learning from people who are not 'pleasant' to you:http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/24/erau-m ... egrity-2/A link to a story about how different leadership in Aviation is from the corporateworld:http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/24/erau-m ... egrity-3/A link to a story about uncompromising standards:http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/23/erau-m ... ntegrity/A link to a story about the man who defines "Aero-Engineer": http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/25/erau-m ... ity-4/Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:33:06 +0000 (UTC)
Ray,I will be glad to submit the rigging data to the newsletter, and one of the guyscan also put it here on this list. When Ryan and I did the CG work several yearsago, it all went directly into the newsletter for everyone to use. This listlatter played a role in getting new builders to understand the CG info andknow where to get it in printed form from Doc Mosher. Those articles are longer,and were best introduced in a lasting printed format, the rigging info willbe comparatively brief and easier to share.Just as with the CG stuff, the information is just a contribution to the Piet community,for builders of all power plants to use. I spent about $70K at Embry-Riddleand our home is literally lined with bookshelves filled with technicalaviation books going back to the 1920s, all of this was money well spent withthe goal of learning more about flight. But still, I can say that at least halfof everything I have learned about planes in 25 years came from experiencedpeople who just wanted to share what they new with others, the only price tobe paid was being willing to listen, consider and learn. In contrast to all the other social graces I lack, I have always been respectfuland grateful to anyone who is teaching me anything. Still, looking back, itis easy to identify countless times that I failed to fully appreciate the depthor impact some information would later have on my understanding. Most of themen I would like to go back and thank again, are gone now. I am left with emulatingtheir method of sharing what they knew as the only way I can express mygratitude. I learned a lot from many good men, I have a large personal debt topay, I expect it to take the rest of my life.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------A link to a story about learning from people who are not 'pleasant' to you:http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/24/erau-m ... egrity-2/A link to a story about how different leadership in Aviation is from the corporateworld:http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/24/erau-m ... egrity-3/A link to a story about uncompromising standards:http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/23/erau-m ... ntegrity/A link to a story about the man who defines "Aero-Engineer": http://flycorvair.net/2014/02/25/erau-m ... ity-4/Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:33:06 +0000 (UTC)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "DonkDoug"
Anyone going to Corvair College in Mexico, MO in September?I'm planning on going, and taking a core to tear down.--------Jon JonesIronton, MORead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Anyone going to Corvair College in Mexico, MO in September?I'm planning on going, and taking a core to tear down.--------Jon JonesIronton, MORead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "DonkDoug"
I've had the wing kit on order for 3 weeks. No response from ACS about an estimatedship date.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
I've had the wing kit on order for 3 weeks. No response from ACS about an estimatedship date.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: Robert Gow
William,I ran the polars a few years ago for Mr. Pietenpol's airfoil and have them on mycomputer at work. I'll print them off tomorrow (if I can find them) and willbring them to Oshkosh. I believe one of the Reynolds number I ran was appropriatefor 75 mph cruise, but will verify this. If not, I will run them again.It should be interesting to compare the real world, empirical data you collectat Brodhead versus the theoretical values the software comes up with.I remember a few years ago reading on this forum of a gentleman named Lowell Frankwho had a Riblett 30-612 on his Piet. I also (vaguely) recall he had eitherequal length cabanes or front cabanes one inch longer than the rear and thathe had to apply forward stick pressure at cruise and higher speeds. If Iam remembering this correctly it makes me suspect my calculations are correctin that the front cabanes should be shorter than the rear by 1/2 of an inch inorder to establish an appropriate angle of incidence for this airfoil on a Piet at cruising speeds.Doug WrightStillwater, OKRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:49:07 -0400Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
William,I ran the polars a few years ago for Mr. Pietenpol's airfoil and have them on mycomputer at work. I'll print them off tomorrow (if I can find them) and willbring them to Oshkosh. I believe one of the Reynolds number I ran was appropriatefor 75 mph cruise, but will verify this. If not, I will run them again.It should be interesting to compare the real world, empirical data you collectat Brodhead versus the theoretical values the software comes up with.I remember a few years ago reading on this forum of a gentleman named Lowell Frankwho had a Riblett 30-612 on his Piet. I also (vaguely) recall he had eitherequal length cabanes or front cabanes one inch longer than the rear and thathe had to apply forward stick pressure at cruise and higher speeds. If Iam remembering this correctly it makes me suspect my calculations are correctin that the front cabanes should be shorter than the rear by 1/2 of an inch inorder to establish an appropriate angle of incidence for this airfoil on a Piet at cruising speeds.Doug WrightStillwater, OKRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:49:07 -0400Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "DonkDoug"
Funny how when you're building the first set of landing gear fittings take three times as long as the final set. The left wing takes halfthe time to build after you've built the right wing.The rib stitching goes so much faster after you've done one elevator. Truing up the motorcycle wheel spokes on the second wheel takesa third of the amount of time as the first wheel did.When I started covering my airplane I asked my dear friend and WWII B-24 pilot buddy Bill Klosz "so when will I be good at this fabric covering stuffBill?" Bill replied: "when you're finished covering." He was right.Mike C.OhioPS-I have a little cardboard box of scrap/rejected aileron horns, instrument panel attempts, landing gear fittings that I keep in the hangar and oncein a while I'll see that box and open it up and it brings back a flood of good memories.[cid:image001.jpg(at)01CFA016.2EA391B0]________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Funny how when you're building the first set of landing gear fittings take three times as long as the final set. The left wing takes halfthe time to build after you've built the right wing.The rib stitching goes so much faster after you've done one elevator. Truing up the motorcycle wheel spokes on the second wheel takesa third of the amount of time as the first wheel did.When I started covering my airplane I asked my dear friend and WWII B-24 pilot buddy Bill Klosz "so when will I be good at this fabric covering stuffBill?" Bill replied: "when you're finished covering." He was right.Mike C.OhioPS-I have a little cardboard box of scrap/rejected aileron horns, instrument panel attempts, landing gear fittings that I keep in the hangar and oncein a while I'll see that box and open it up and it brings back a flood of good memories.[cid:image001.jpg(at)01CFA016.2EA391B0]________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "echobravo4"
Thanks for all the positive words. Bought the new spar blanks this morning (sitkaspruce) and just cut them to width on the table saw with a friend Ron. Whothe heck would do such a thing on an 88 degree afternoon...!!
--------Jake Schultz - curator,Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Thanks for all the positive words. Bought the new spar blanks this morning (sitkaspruce) and just cut them to width on the table saw with a friend Ron. Whothe heck would do such a thing on an 88 degree afternoon...!!
--------Jake Schultz - curator,Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014Original Posted By: gliderx5(at)comcast.net
Oh goody!YOU'RE backYou never cease to amaze with your mastery of the English language--------Earl BrownI may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where Iintended to be.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 00:56:34 +0000 (UTC)
Oh goody!YOU'RE backYou never cease to amaze with your mastery of the English language--------Earl BrownI may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where Iintended to be.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 00:56:34 +0000 (UTC)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: gliderx5(at)comcast.net
Braniff1996,Remember, this is a public forum and not a locker room or bar with your best buds.Just an aside, but if it was truly perfect, then Mr. Pietenpol would have quittweaking it to make it better. It is an awesome design but perfect is probablynot the right adjective.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 01:22:29 +0000 (UTC)
Braniff1996,Remember, this is a public forum and not a locker room or bar with your best buds.Just an aside, but if it was truly perfect, then Mr. Pietenpol would have quittweaking it to make it better. It is an awesome design but perfect is probablynot the right adjective.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 01:22:29 +0000 (UTC)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "DonkDoug"
Looks WONDERFUL..... What a sculpture of art....!--------Jake Schultz - curator,Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Looks WONDERFUL..... What a sculpture of art....!--------Jake Schultz - curator,Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "William Wynne"
Gents,The question has arisen again if someone has flown their Piet without fabric onthe fuselage. The short answer is yes. My plane has back in the late 1980's.Just around the pattern one time at 350 feet MSL. Is it a safe thing to do?NO it is not. DON'T do it or even consider it. With all the 85 horsepower anda 145 lb pilot, it barely made it around the pattern.There you have it. Yes, it has been done and DON'T even consider it. Not ever,no how, no way. Never again with my plane. There you have it, in a nut shell. Carry on, keep building and fly safe. Seriously,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Gents,The question has arisen again if someone has flown their Piet without fabric onthe fuselage. The short answer is yes. My plane has back in the late 1980's.Just around the pattern one time at 350 feet MSL. Is it a safe thing to do?NO it is not. DON'T do it or even consider it. With all the 85 horsepower anda 145 lb pilot, it barely made it around the pattern.There you have it. Yes, it has been done and DON'T even consider it. Not ever,no how, no way. Never again with my plane. There you have it, in a nut shell. Carry on, keep building and fly safe. Seriously,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: shad bell
Doug,You should not let anyone in flying tick you off to that degree, and let me sharewhy: After 25 years of advocating learning about planes, specifically homebuilts,let me share 2 insights: Mr. B-1966 is actually in the majority perspectiveand more importantly, you may find his attitudes and values aggravating,but they have little effect on how much you can adhere to and enjoy your own personalcode and path--------------------------------------------------------------We all know that 99% of Americans, people who live in the land that invented flying,won WWII with it, and used it as a stepping stone to the moon, want nothingto do with light planes and are horrified by the concept of building anythingthey would fly. But let's just look at pilots: 80% of pilots have no interestin homebuilts, and have attitudes that make Mr.B sound open minded. This includes'J-Mac' the head of EAA publications and about 90% of the management ofAOPA. I don't like this, and I complain about it when each of these organizationswants my membership money, but it doesn't affect my personal path.------------------------------------------------------About 80% of the Van's RV pilots I know openly say that no one should be allowedto modify any RV design. This is an extension of the "Its perfect, you don'teven need to know how it works" mentality. One little problem with that: TheRV-1 was a modified Stitts Playboy, and if Ray Stitts had the same attitude therenever would be an RV anything today. Countless people have told me that VanGrunsvenholds and anti-modification bias, but I ask each one if they have evermet him personally, the answer is invariably 'no'. I then point out that Ihave spent many hours in a small, closed door,industry trade group chaired bythe man, and I might be in a better position to say what the man's line of thinkingis. This opens few minds, but it doesn't affect my personal path.------------------------------------------------------------80% of people who claim to be homebuilders, have little interest in learning, theyjust want to 'have' the plane. Few of these people would consider buildingtheir own engine, far less building one that has it's origins in the automotiveworld. These people have a sadly shallow view of what an individual can accomplish,skewed by their own unwillingness to learn things. I used to point outthings like the Wright's were homebuilders, that BHP only used car engines,and every power plant is built by the hands of a person somewhere, but these pointsare lost to the closed minded that don't view themselves as capable of learningit, so they extend this to thinking that no one else could either, becausethat would mean that other people would be smarter, know more, be more motivatedand skilled, and that is an uncomfortable thought for them. I find peopleagainst alternative engines to be annoying but it doesn't affect my personalpath. ---------------------------------------------------------I find it very ironic that people who champion individuality, private property,and rights in their words on other subjects, quite frequently can be found tellingothers, what they should be 'allowed' to build, what they should be 'allowed'to do to a kit they have purchased, what power plants people should be 'allowed'to use, and further lecturing other individuals on how they should spendthe hours in their lives in their own workshops, and even what to think abouthomebuilts. I don't care what anyone else does with their hours, dollars andthoughts. I share my ideas and perspectives, hope they might make sense tosome others, but I have no interest in telling others what they should be allowedto do, own or think. The reality that aviation is filled with philosophicalhypocrites annoys me, but it doesn't affect my personal path. -------------------------------------------------------------The personal belief that you can build something good with your own hands and flyit, even if others around you are telling you that you will never achieve this,did not originate with the EAA, it arguably goes back to the Wright brothers,who adamantly rejected the mentality that planes could only be built in factoriesrun by professors like Langley. If BHP had listened to the people in1928 that told him that his will to learn, design, and build were wasted, we wouldhave no Pietepol's today. Negative people have always been part of the landscape,it will never change but it doesn't affect my personal path.----------------------------------------------------------In two weeks I will be manning my booth at Oshkosh, an event that started out asa gathering of experimental aviators, who's actual creed was "Learn, Build andFly". I will politely smile when countless people will tell me they don't wantto learn anything, or build it, they just want to 'have' it. Can you guesswhat personal mantra I silently repeat in my head while they talk? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Idea for today: Go to you tube and listen to Johnny Cash's 1964 version of "Theballad of Ira Hayes".http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIt5v_3P_XARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:29:35 -0700
Doug,You should not let anyone in flying tick you off to that degree, and let me sharewhy: After 25 years of advocating learning about planes, specifically homebuilts,let me share 2 insights: Mr. B-1966 is actually in the majority perspectiveand more importantly, you may find his attitudes and values aggravating,but they have little effect on how much you can adhere to and enjoy your own personalcode and path--------------------------------------------------------------We all know that 99% of Americans, people who live in the land that invented flying,won WWII with it, and used it as a stepping stone to the moon, want nothingto do with light planes and are horrified by the concept of building anythingthey would fly. But let's just look at pilots: 80% of pilots have no interestin homebuilts, and have attitudes that make Mr.B sound open minded. This includes'J-Mac' the head of EAA publications and about 90% of the management ofAOPA. I don't like this, and I complain about it when each of these organizationswants my membership money, but it doesn't affect my personal path.------------------------------------------------------About 80% of the Van's RV pilots I know openly say that no one should be allowedto modify any RV design. This is an extension of the "Its perfect, you don'teven need to know how it works" mentality. One little problem with that: TheRV-1 was a modified Stitts Playboy, and if Ray Stitts had the same attitude therenever would be an RV anything today. Countless people have told me that VanGrunsvenholds and anti-modification bias, but I ask each one if they have evermet him personally, the answer is invariably 'no'. I then point out that Ihave spent many hours in a small, closed door,industry trade group chaired bythe man, and I might be in a better position to say what the man's line of thinkingis. This opens few minds, but it doesn't affect my personal path.------------------------------------------------------------80% of people who claim to be homebuilders, have little interest in learning, theyjust want to 'have' the plane. Few of these people would consider buildingtheir own engine, far less building one that has it's origins in the automotiveworld. These people have a sadly shallow view of what an individual can accomplish,skewed by their own unwillingness to learn things. I used to point outthings like the Wright's were homebuilders, that BHP only used car engines,and every power plant is built by the hands of a person somewhere, but these pointsare lost to the closed minded that don't view themselves as capable of learningit, so they extend this to thinking that no one else could either, becausethat would mean that other people would be smarter, know more, be more motivatedand skilled, and that is an uncomfortable thought for them. I find peopleagainst alternative engines to be annoying but it doesn't affect my personalpath. ---------------------------------------------------------I find it very ironic that people who champion individuality, private property,and rights in their words on other subjects, quite frequently can be found tellingothers, what they should be 'allowed' to build, what they should be 'allowed'to do to a kit they have purchased, what power plants people should be 'allowed'to use, and further lecturing other individuals on how they should spendthe hours in their lives in their own workshops, and even what to think abouthomebuilts. I don't care what anyone else does with their hours, dollars andthoughts. I share my ideas and perspectives, hope they might make sense tosome others, but I have no interest in telling others what they should be allowedto do, own or think. The reality that aviation is filled with philosophicalhypocrites annoys me, but it doesn't affect my personal path. -------------------------------------------------------------The personal belief that you can build something good with your own hands and flyit, even if others around you are telling you that you will never achieve this,did not originate with the EAA, it arguably goes back to the Wright brothers,who adamantly rejected the mentality that planes could only be built in factoriesrun by professors like Langley. If BHP had listened to the people in1928 that told him that his will to learn, design, and build were wasted, we wouldhave no Pietepol's today. Negative people have always been part of the landscape,it will never change but it doesn't affect my personal path.----------------------------------------------------------In two weeks I will be manning my booth at Oshkosh, an event that started out asa gathering of experimental aviators, who's actual creed was "Learn, Build andFly". I will politely smile when countless people will tell me they don't wantto learn anything, or build it, they just want to 'have' it. Can you guesswhat personal mantra I silently repeat in my head while they talk? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Idea for today: Go to you tube and listen to Johnny Cash's 1964 version of "Theballad of Ira Hayes".http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIt5v_3P_XARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:29:35 -0700
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: Jim Boyer
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "DonkDoug"
Hi Jim - Shelley has a stencil cutting machine and she worked her magic.--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeRebuilding NX899KPAustin/San Marcos, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Hi Jim - Shelley has a stencil cutting machine and she worked her magic.--------Kevin "Axel" PurteeRebuilding NX899KPAustin/San Marcos, TXRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: Jim Boyer
Paul,I am out of town tonight but when I get home tomorrow pm and have the numbers infront of me I will be glad to crunch them for you. I suspect the angle of attackfor the 30-613.5 is slightly less for a given lift coefficient comparedto the 30-612. But what I think will make a bigger difference in determiningthe cabane lengths and setting the incidence is my suspicion that the 30-613.5will have a greater difference under the chord line, when comparing the frontto the rear spar locations, then the 30-612 does. I am curious myself and willlet you know.Doug WrightStillwater, OKRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:00:30 +0000 (UTC)
Paul,I am out of town tonight but when I get home tomorrow pm and have the numbers infront of me I will be glad to crunch them for you. I suspect the angle of attackfor the 30-613.5 is slightly less for a given lift coefficient comparedto the 30-612. But what I think will make a bigger difference in determiningthe cabane lengths and setting the incidence is my suspicion that the 30-613.5will have a greater difference under the chord line, when comparing the frontto the rear spar locations, then the 30-612 does. I am curious myself and willlet you know.Doug WrightStillwater, OKRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:00:30 +0000 (UTC)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "DonkDoug"
I haven't had my own for some time. What I foundwas, and is, that they are not being transferedfrom the sent file. I just read them in there if Ineed too. It just happened one day a while back.One day there in my inbox, the next not. I wonderif it's my provider trying to streamline things. Andnow yours too.Neferous ba... oops!ClifHanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." And I can't see ANY of my own posts. Somebody please reply to this so I can see if it went through. Dan Helsper Puryear, TN________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
I haven't had my own for some time. What I foundwas, and is, that they are not being transferedfrom the sent file. I just read them in there if Ineed too. It just happened one day a while back.One day there in my inbox, the next not. I wonderif it's my provider trying to streamline things. Andnow yours too.Neferous ba... oops!ClifHanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." And I can't see ANY of my own posts. Somebody please reply to this so I can see if it went through. Dan Helsper Puryear, TN________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "William Wynne"
Paul, Mike and any other Riblett builders out there,So in calculating incidence angles for the Riblett airfoil to this point I hada nagging suspicion that something was being left out. After getting out my oldtextbooks tonight I discovered I was right. Determining the lift coefficient required at cruise from aircraft operating weight,speed and air density is correct but to determine the incidence angle thatshould be set for cruising speeds the aspect ratio of the wing and the angleof attack at which zero lift is created must also be factored in. Doing so Ifound that for the operating weight of 1150 lbs. that we have been using anda speed of 75 mph on a Standard Day both the Riblett 30-612 and 30-613.5 shouldhave an incidence angle set at about 3 degrees positive. That works out tothe front cabane being longer than the rear. For those of you that have built your plane with equal length cabanes this lengthwould be appropriate for a cruising speed coefficient of lift of about .46.One would see that cruise speed lift coefficient at lighter operating weights,cooler than Standard Day temperatures, lower altitudes, higher speeds and combinationsof these conditions.For those with front cabanes one inch longer than the rear the resulting incidencewould be appropriate for conditions that produce a cruising speed lift coefficientof about .62. This would be appropriate for heavier operating weights,slower speeds, hotter days, higher altitudes, less dense air and combinationsof these variables.I apologize for any confusion I may have created with my earlier posts. Doug WrightStillwater, OKRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Paul, Mike and any other Riblett builders out there,So in calculating incidence angles for the Riblett airfoil to this point I hada nagging suspicion that something was being left out. After getting out my oldtextbooks tonight I discovered I was right. Determining the lift coefficient required at cruise from aircraft operating weight,speed and air density is correct but to determine the incidence angle thatshould be set for cruising speeds the aspect ratio of the wing and the angleof attack at which zero lift is created must also be factored in. Doing so Ifound that for the operating weight of 1150 lbs. that we have been using anda speed of 75 mph on a Standard Day both the Riblett 30-612 and 30-613.5 shouldhave an incidence angle set at about 3 degrees positive. That works out tothe front cabane being longer than the rear. For those of you that have built your plane with equal length cabanes this lengthwould be appropriate for a cruising speed coefficient of lift of about .46.One would see that cruise speed lift coefficient at lighter operating weights,cooler than Standard Day temperatures, lower altitudes, higher speeds and combinationsof these conditions.For those with front cabanes one inch longer than the rear the resulting incidencewould be appropriate for conditions that produce a cruising speed lift coefficientof about .62. This would be appropriate for heavier operating weights,slower speeds, hotter days, higher altitudes, less dense air and combinationsof these variables.I apologize for any confusion I may have created with my earlier posts. Doug WrightStillwater, OKRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair College
Original Posted By: "Charles N. Campbell"
Doug,The formula I stuck up in the original post is valid, but as you mention a simplification.I wanted to show people some of the factors at work without boggingit down with every factor that can be brought in. In the end, I think the mostuseful element of the project will be the collection of examples of flyingplanes. A flying plane is obviously taking all real world factors into accountin correct proportion.---------------------------------------Two other elements that come into play are the fact that few textbook examplesare based around wing loading as light as a Piet, and we still have to accountfor the wash out is the plane uses it. My feeling is that these may moderatea lot of the aspect ratio factor. ----------------------------------------There is a lot of individuality to each snowflake in the storm, and I doubt thatmaking a conclusion based on one two or three observations would be valid, butas Doug is getting at the data will likely point at trends in the right directionor good starting points for builders. If one plane with a different anglehas good performance, it could easily be attributable to a dozen other factors.However, if every plane over 85 hp flies 2 degrees nose low, that is probablyworth looking at in detail.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 06:28:41 -0400Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair College
Doug,The formula I stuck up in the original post is valid, but as you mention a simplification.I wanted to show people some of the factors at work without boggingit down with every factor that can be brought in. In the end, I think the mostuseful element of the project will be the collection of examples of flyingplanes. A flying plane is obviously taking all real world factors into accountin correct proportion.---------------------------------------Two other elements that come into play are the fact that few textbook examplesare based around wing loading as light as a Piet, and we still have to accountfor the wash out is the plane uses it. My feeling is that these may moderatea lot of the aspect ratio factor. ----------------------------------------There is a lot of individuality to each snowflake in the storm, and I doubt thatmaking a conclusion based on one two or three observations would be valid, butas Doug is getting at the data will likely point at trends in the right directionor good starting points for builders. If one plane with a different anglehas good performance, it could easily be attributable to a dozen other factors.However, if every plane over 85 hp flies 2 degrees nose low, that is probablyworth looking at in detail.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 06:28:41 -0400Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair College
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "DonkDoug"
Doug and others-William's point is well taken. There is a Piet already flying with the Riblett wing. This is not theoretical=3B it exists. It has been test-flown with another=2C nearly identical Piet with the FC10 airfoil. There is no need to guess or calculate the wing incidence before talking with the builder/pilot of the airplane that has already successfully flown. There is a good trail of bread crumbs. As I recall=2C PF wrote an article for the BPA Newsletter that documented their findings and test results=2C and he is very available to answer questions.Oscar ZunigaMedford=2C ORAir Camper NX41CCA-75 power ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Doug and others-William's point is well taken. There is a Piet already flying with the Riblett wing. This is not theoretical=3B it exists. It has been test-flown with another=2C nearly identical Piet with the FC10 airfoil. There is no need to guess or calculate the wing incidence before talking with the builder/pilot of the airplane that has already successfully flown. There is a good trail of bread crumbs. As I recall=2C PF wrote an article for the BPA Newsletter that documented their findings and test results=2C and he is very available to answer questions.Oscar ZunigaMedford=2C ORAir Camper NX41CCA-75 power ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair College
Original Posted By: "PatrickW"
William,Yep, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It will be interesting to seethe real world numbers you get through empirical testing at Brodhead. I appreciateyou pursuing this project. Like your CG initiative it should be helpfulin enabling folks to build a safe airplane.Doug WrightStillwater, OKRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair College
William,Yep, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It will be interesting to seethe real world numbers you get through empirical testing at Brodhead. I appreciateyou pursuing this project. Like your CG initiative it should be helpfulin enabling folks to build a safe airplane.Doug WrightStillwater, OKRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Corvair College
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "dgaldrich"
I want to fly down, but it's too soon to know if I'll be able to. A lot of thingsneed to line up schedule-wise at work. Fingers crossed. Made it last year.These Corvair Colleges are a lot of fun. You'll meet really good people, and you'lllearn a lot. - PatPatrick HoytN63PZ - XL/Corvair - FlyingRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
I want to fly down, but it's too soon to know if I'll be able to. A lot of thingsneed to line up schedule-wise at work. Fingers crossed. Made it last year.These Corvair Colleges are a lot of fun. You'll meet really good people, and you'lllearn a lot. - PatPatrick HoytN63PZ - XL/Corvair - FlyingRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-LME0)[Vantage Partners, LLC]"
Random thoughts on this thread---If I understand this thread, the ultimate number that people are looking for isthe angle between the chord of the wind and the chord of the tail surface thatwill give zero stick force at a normal cruise speed, c/g, and weight. The ideais to find a nice center spot so only minor trim changes will be needed toaccommodate speed and weight changes. It's pretty obvious that you can change the angle between wing and tail by eitherdifferential cabane length or tail shims. Raise the bridge or lower the river.Again, ideally, when at the zero stick force/normal cruise speed point,the fuselage will be level with the earth and all the thrust will be in the forwarddirection.It seems to me that there are 5 data points that need to be collected for eachairplane. 1. Angle of incidence of the wing. 2. Angle of incidence of the horizontal stabilizer. 3. Speed in flight with zero pitch stick force and trim systems neutral. 4. Fuselage deck angle at that speed. 5. Center of GravityAssuming adequate power, a builder could optimize his plane for a specific airspeed.As an example, with a 100 hp Corvair engine or an O-200, the builder couldcruise "hands off" at any speed between, say, 50 mph and 85+ mph by simplychanging the relative angles of the two lifting surfaces. This is what heavyjets and Piper Cubs normally do in flight so we know it works.If the operating CG range of the aircraft is within the 15-20 inch aft of leadingedge limits, then shifting the CG forward or aft is not likely to fix any largecontrol force issues and runs the risk of moving it too far. Here's what I'm taking away from this discussion. 1. I need to determine what cruise speed I'm building for. 2. I need to build the cabane diagonals so that the aircraft is in CG forall weights and loading. 3. I need to use the data that Mr. Wynne is collecting to figure out propercabane length differential. 4. I need to figure out how to make minor adjustments to the horizontal stabangle of incidence during flight testing. 5. I need to get my sorry a$$ out to the hangar and build something.DaveRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Random thoughts on this thread---If I understand this thread, the ultimate number that people are looking for isthe angle between the chord of the wind and the chord of the tail surface thatwill give zero stick force at a normal cruise speed, c/g, and weight. The ideais to find a nice center spot so only minor trim changes will be needed toaccommodate speed and weight changes. It's pretty obvious that you can change the angle between wing and tail by eitherdifferential cabane length or tail shims. Raise the bridge or lower the river.Again, ideally, when at the zero stick force/normal cruise speed point,the fuselage will be level with the earth and all the thrust will be in the forwarddirection.It seems to me that there are 5 data points that need to be collected for eachairplane. 1. Angle of incidence of the wing. 2. Angle of incidence of the horizontal stabilizer. 3. Speed in flight with zero pitch stick force and trim systems neutral. 4. Fuselage deck angle at that speed. 5. Center of GravityAssuming adequate power, a builder could optimize his plane for a specific airspeed.As an example, with a 100 hp Corvair engine or an O-200, the builder couldcruise "hands off" at any speed between, say, 50 mph and 85+ mph by simplychanging the relative angles of the two lifting surfaces. This is what heavyjets and Piper Cubs normally do in flight so we know it works.If the operating CG range of the aircraft is within the 15-20 inch aft of leadingedge limits, then shifting the CG forward or aft is not likely to fix any largecontrol force issues and runs the risk of moving it too far. Here's what I'm taking away from this discussion. 1. I need to determine what cruise speed I'm building for. 2. I need to build the cabane diagonals so that the aircraft is in CG forall weights and loading. 3. I need to use the data that Mr. Wynne is collecting to figure out propercabane length differential. 4. I need to figure out how to make minor adjustments to the horizontal stabangle of incidence during flight testing. 5. I need to get my sorry a$$ out to the hangar and build something.DaveRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Just build to plans. Cabane lengths have already been determined by Mr. Pietenpol, and attestedto, even with other airfoils, as demonstrated by PF Beck's notes. If you think you are going to be heavy, angle the cabanes back.It's that simple. The "discussion" went in a complete circle and ended upback at the plans!! Lots of builders have made lots of changes, but no onehas improved a thing!!Gary BootheNX308MB-----Original Message-----
Just build to plans. Cabane lengths have already been determined by Mr. Pietenpol, and attestedto, even with other airfoils, as demonstrated by PF Beck's notes. If you think you are going to be heavy, angle the cabanes back.It's that simple. The "discussion" went in a complete circle and ended upback at the plans!! Lots of builders have made lots of changes, but no onehas improved a thing!!Gary BootheNX308MB-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Mike,If your plane is done and flying and you are happy with it, there is no need toread any of this, especially if it makes you sleepy. However, I think that partof the issue Chris is working with is exactly what you think is the 'fix' namelyusing the same incidence on every plane regardless of the airfoil, poweror weight. I think that we will know a lot more after we measure some stuff,but I want to come out with some better guidance for builders that just tellingeveryone to make the cabanes one length and guessing at another man's riggingissues with shot in the dark ideas like "move the wing" or "just make the cabanes1" longer".-----------------------------------------------------I have contacted Chris, and if possible I am going to visit his plane personallyafter Oshkosh is over. I think that this, and the information we gather willoffer a better solution than guessing. More corrections are made by people willingto examine the issue and consider it in detail, than people with glazedover eyes making generalizations about snowflakes.----------------------------------------------------As I said, if anyone has a plane with 1929 style gear and 50-65 hp, is flying inCG and has the BHP airfoil, it lends to reason that the plans incidence is greatadvice. PF and Don's planes may have a bit more power, but also fall in thesame group. Terry Hand already got very detailed rigging and notes from PFto kick off our data collection, and their results are satisfactory on their planes.When I visit Chris's project, the first thing I am going to do is see howit differs from Don's as a starting point.-------------------------------I know of very few 'perfect' examples of any homebuit design that are 15 yearsold. Mostly builders, and most designers, continue to evolve their thinking, evenon small points. I can think of no better evidence of this than how different"the Last Original" looks from planes in the 1929 plans. BHP's eyes didn'tglaze over at the opportunity to think, consider, test, refine. Most successfulhomebuilders would gladly advise any builder following in their footsteps onhow to build a slightly better, more refined evolution of their plane, so thatthe next man might have something slightly better. Telling anyone that it isn'tpossible to build a more refined plane than was done before seems implausible.--------------------------------------------------------The mere idea that a number of builders opted to make a significant change in theplane by using a different airfoil, it seems very odd to suggest to these buildersthat changing the airfoil is OK, but somehow tailoring the incidence ofthat different airfoil is somehow sacrilege.----------------------------------------------------------Making the suggestion that Don flew 1" longer cabanes on his plane with the Ribblett,and he liked it, so therefore absolutely no further evaluation should beconsidered, discussed nor allowed, because it is upsetting to people who wantto see the design cast in stone in 1929, or whenever. Lots of people like thingsthat don't change nor evolve. This is some peoples nature. However, we haveplenty of evidence that BHP was not one of those people.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:04:53 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Mike,If your plane is done and flying and you are happy with it, there is no need toread any of this, especially if it makes you sleepy. However, I think that partof the issue Chris is working with is exactly what you think is the 'fix' namelyusing the same incidence on every plane regardless of the airfoil, poweror weight. I think that we will know a lot more after we measure some stuff,but I want to come out with some better guidance for builders that just tellingeveryone to make the cabanes one length and guessing at another man's riggingissues with shot in the dark ideas like "move the wing" or "just make the cabanes1" longer".-----------------------------------------------------I have contacted Chris, and if possible I am going to visit his plane personallyafter Oshkosh is over. I think that this, and the information we gather willoffer a better solution than guessing. More corrections are made by people willingto examine the issue and consider it in detail, than people with glazedover eyes making generalizations about snowflakes.----------------------------------------------------As I said, if anyone has a plane with 1929 style gear and 50-65 hp, is flying inCG and has the BHP airfoil, it lends to reason that the plans incidence is greatadvice. PF and Don's planes may have a bit more power, but also fall in thesame group. Terry Hand already got very detailed rigging and notes from PFto kick off our data collection, and their results are satisfactory on their planes.When I visit Chris's project, the first thing I am going to do is see howit differs from Don's as a starting point.-------------------------------I know of very few 'perfect' examples of any homebuit design that are 15 yearsold. Mostly builders, and most designers, continue to evolve their thinking, evenon small points. I can think of no better evidence of this than how different"the Last Original" looks from planes in the 1929 plans. BHP's eyes didn'tglaze over at the opportunity to think, consider, test, refine. Most successfulhomebuilders would gladly advise any builder following in their footsteps onhow to build a slightly better, more refined evolution of their plane, so thatthe next man might have something slightly better. Telling anyone that it isn'tpossible to build a more refined plane than was done before seems implausible.--------------------------------------------------------The mere idea that a number of builders opted to make a significant change in theplane by using a different airfoil, it seems very odd to suggest to these buildersthat changing the airfoil is OK, but somehow tailoring the incidence ofthat different airfoil is somehow sacrilege.----------------------------------------------------------Making the suggestion that Don flew 1" longer cabanes on his plane with the Ribblett,and he liked it, so therefore absolutely no further evaluation should beconsidered, discussed nor allowed, because it is upsetting to people who wantto see the design cast in stone in 1929, or whenever. Lots of people like thingsthat don't change nor evolve. This is some peoples nature. However, we haveplenty of evidence that BHP was not one of those people.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:04:53 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: John Hofmann
Rick,Now you've done it. I mean that's sort of been done already. When you get a chancelook at the Flying Flea. Goofy looking plane at best. Look at haw thewing moves. Almost scary. Now my eyes are glazed over again.--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Rick,Now you've done it. I mean that's sort of been done already. When you get a chancelook at the Flying Flea. Goofy looking plane at best. Look at haw thewing moves. Almost scary. Now my eyes are glazed over again.--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: glenschweizer(at)yahoo.com
If anyone is interested, I got this through the Cub Club. I know nothing otherthan what is below.Continental A65-8 engine disassembled. Tapered shaft ground .010 under with prop.hub. Zero time on .015 over cylinders. Cylinders are complete with new A75pistons. Rockers arms overhauled. Engine is complete but will need .859 pistonpins. Extra set of push rods, rocker arms, cam followers, plungers and carb.$1500, Tom Arnold, 661-623-1611, email: earnold(at)bak.rr.comBest,-john-John HofmannVice-President, IT and ProductionThe Rees Group, Inc.2424 American LaneMadison, WI 53704Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150Fax: 608.443.2474Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
If anyone is interested, I got this through the Cub Club. I know nothing otherthan what is below.Continental A65-8 engine disassembled. Tapered shaft ground .010 under with prop.hub. Zero time on .015 over cylinders. Cylinders are complete with new A75pistons. Rockers arms overhauled. Engine is complete but will need .859 pistonpins. Extra set of push rods, rocker arms, cam followers, plungers and carb.$1500, Tom Arnold, 661-623-1611, email: earnold(at)bak.rr.comBest,-john-John HofmannVice-President, IT and ProductionThe Rees Group, Inc.2424 American LaneMadison, WI 53704Phone: 608.443.2468 ext 150Fax: 608.443.2474Email: jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: Gene Rambo
It's a peitenpol.not an F14. How would you account for a wash in effect, aileron differences etc. maybe you should go ahead and build an F14. It's a peit., keep it simple for peit's sake!Sent from my iPhone> On Jul 18, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Rick Holland wrote:> > Kind of like an F-14 has variable wing sweep you could weld screw-jacks in the middle of your rear cabanes and have variable wing incidence to account for varying temps, airspeed, DA, etc. And then add an electric motor to rotate the screws with a switch on your joystick handle next to your elevator trim switch, PTT switch, aileron trim switch.................zzzzzz> > rh> > >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:30 PM, DonkDoug wrote:edu>>> >> Paul, Mike and any other Riblett builders out there,>> >> So in calculating incidence angles for the Riblett airfoil to this point I had a nagging suspicion that something was being left out. After getting out my old textbooks tonight I discovered I was right.>> >> Determining the lift coefficient required at cruise from aircraft operating weight, speed and air density is correct but to determine the incidence angle that should be set for cruising speeds the aspect ratio of the wing and the angle of attack at which zero lift is created must also be factored in. Doing so I found that for the operating weight of 1150 lbs. that we have been using and a speed of 75 mph on a Standard Day both the Riblett 30-612 and 30-613.5 should have an incidence angle set at about 3 degrees positive. That works out to the front cabane being =C2=BD=9D longer than the rear.>> >> For those of you that have built your plane with equal length cabanes this length would be appropriate for a cruising speed coefficient of lift of about .46. One would see that cruise speed lift coefficient at lighter operating weights, cooler than Standard Day temperatures, lower altitudes, higher speeds and combinations of these conditions.>> >> For those with front cabanes one inch longer than the rear the resulting incidence would be appropriate for conditions that produce a cruising speed lift coefficient of about .62. This would be appropriate for heavier operating weights, slower speeds, hotter days, higher altitudes, less dense air and combinations of these variables.>> >> I apologize for any confusion I may have created with my earlier posts.>> >> Doug Wright>> Stillwater, OK>> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here:>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 874#426874>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ==========>> br> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>> ==========>> MS ->> k">http://forums.matronics.com>> ==========>> e ->> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution>> ==========> > > > -- > Rick Holland> Castle Rock, Colorado> NX6819Z> > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> ________________________________________________________________________________
It's a peitenpol.not an F14. How would you account for a wash in effect, aileron differences etc. maybe you should go ahead and build an F14. It's a peit., keep it simple for peit's sake!Sent from my iPhone> On Jul 18, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Rick Holland wrote:> > Kind of like an F-14 has variable wing sweep you could weld screw-jacks in the middle of your rear cabanes and have variable wing incidence to account for varying temps, airspeed, DA, etc. And then add an electric motor to rotate the screws with a switch on your joystick handle next to your elevator trim switch, PTT switch, aileron trim switch.................zzzzzz> > rh> > >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:30 PM, DonkDoug wrote:edu>>> >> Paul, Mike and any other Riblett builders out there,>> >> So in calculating incidence angles for the Riblett airfoil to this point I had a nagging suspicion that something was being left out. After getting out my old textbooks tonight I discovered I was right.>> >> Determining the lift coefficient required at cruise from aircraft operating weight, speed and air density is correct but to determine the incidence angle that should be set for cruising speeds the aspect ratio of the wing and the angle of attack at which zero lift is created must also be factored in. Doing so I found that for the operating weight of 1150 lbs. that we have been using and a speed of 75 mph on a Standard Day both the Riblett 30-612 and 30-613.5 should have an incidence angle set at about 3 degrees positive. That works out to the front cabane being =C2=BD=9D longer than the rear.>> >> For those of you that have built your plane with equal length cabanes this length would be appropriate for a cruising speed coefficient of lift of about .46. One would see that cruise speed lift coefficient at lighter operating weights, cooler than Standard Day temperatures, lower altitudes, higher speeds and combinations of these conditions.>> >> For those with front cabanes one inch longer than the rear the resulting incidence would be appropriate for conditions that produce a cruising speed lift coefficient of about .62. This would be appropriate for heavier operating weights, slower speeds, hotter days, higher altitudes, less dense air and combinations of these variables.>> >> I apologize for any confusion I may have created with my earlier posts.>> >> Doug Wright>> Stillwater, OK>> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here:>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 874#426874>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ==========>> br> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>> ==========>> MS ->> k">http://forums.matronics.com>> ==========>> e ->> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.>> t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution>> ==========> > > > -- > Rick Holland> Castle Rock, Colorado> NX6819Z> > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> ________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: A65-8
Original Posted By: "Pietflyer1977"
OK, I have 108 hour left until I leave for Brodhead, I have two engine to buildand test run, a trailer to pack, and about 100 other things to do so this isthe last comment on the topic....----------------------------------------------------------------Dave Aldrich's comments above are right on the money, comes as little surprise,he is a very practical and clear thinking guy with a background in flying thatexceeds that of myself and most other Piet-peanut gallery people by a factorof 100X or so. Go back and read his simple laid out thoughts if you want to understandwhat the data collection could do for a builder. If you don't like theidea of thinking or discussing these topics. use the delete key, don't speakto me a Brodhead, and merrily go back to a world were I don't exist. I do thisall the time, example, I don't read a single word that "J-Mac" the EAA's editorwrites, and I don't watch TV news because my world is better when these thingsdon't exist to me. It is your life, your day, your minutes have them yourway......just make sure that you will not later need to know anything we learnby doing this or any other project like the CG stuff, which BTW I have beentold "ruined" Pietenpol building by "bringing math into it," ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Before one more person types the phrase "Just build it according to the plans",they should take a good look at the size of the rock in their hand and the glasshouse they are living in. I could be a jackass and point out that the majorityof people who write that don't have a plane/project that looks much likethe 1929-33 plans, nor the updates, nor what I call the "Living Plans", the lastOriginal. So please explain to me why a guy with brakes on a straight axle,or shoulder belts, or a certified engine, or flying outside 15-20", or with electricstart on his Corvair, or with a leaf spring tail wheel or a host of otherthings not in the plans, feels absolutely justified when he tells anotherman that he should not be allowed to change the incidence of his wing one degree...becausethat wouldn't be "according to the plans."--------------------------------------------------------------------------Chris Roush has a good looking plane with an innovative engine and I have nevermet him, but he sure sounds like a good cat. His plane has only logged a handfulof flights in 9 months, and it has a frustrating issue that is standing betweenhim and a lot of good times, something small no doubt, but the answer isn'twritten down on a piece of paper for him to read and apply the correction......notwritten down yet, that is, but hopefully it will be when we are donewith this project. Now, just imagine if that stupid piece of paper already existed5 years ago....Chris might have a 100 hours on the plane by now and packingit up for the trip to Brodhead, because it would have flown hands off on flight#1. Please explain to me how it is more noble and productive to sit in aglass house and type the phrase "Just build it to the plans" than it is to assistus in typing the notes on the piece of paper that will allow all futurebuilders to avoid getting into Chris's position.--------------------------------------------------------------------When Ryan and I did the CG project, we didn't change anything, redesign anything,or make any new plans at all, although I was accused of this by glass housepeople. All we did was take the CG range straight off BHP's notes, gathered somesamples, and did some example calculations. Realistically, We were the peoplechampioning following the plans, but a lot of the push back against that projectcame from people who's planes were flying at CG's of 21", people who likedto type "Just build it according to the plans", something they clearly didn'tdo themselves. Who is the heretic in that debate?-----------------------------------------------------------------BHP didn't say NEVER CHANGE THE INCIDENCE on the plans in all capitol letters,but funny, he did say NEVER FLY WITH CG AFT OF 20" in all caps, right on the plans.Please tell me how the imaginary first phrase is to be defended to the death,but the real second one had a weak following at best? I was motivated todo the CG project because 5 people I knew put a Pietenpol on it's back in threeyears, and 4 out of the 5 people who did this, didn't understand that the factthey were using the 10" axle location from the no-brakes 1929 plans with aset of brakes was the driving force. I also met several people who were flyingPiets that complained they were chronically tail heavy, and W&B showed theseplane to be out the aft limit....now the good part.....nearly every one of thesepeople claimed they had "just built it according to the plans." I can lookback through the archives of this list and see these people asking questions,and of course the glass house club, people with no data or anything constructiveto say then or now, always felt obligated to chime in "Just build it accordingto plans!" and so those people for lack of a little set of notes, got startedon the work that would lead them directly to a field where they unbuckledtheir seat belt and banged their head on the ground. I have a hard time seeinghow my work to avoid people being in that position has me "ruining" Pietenpolbuilding.------------------------------------------------------------------------I fully get that there are many people who just like the Idea of "Flying low andslow and not doing a lot on math stuff", and that these people can be deeplyoffended by the things I write, say and think. I get it because it is a two waystreet, I think of Low, slow and not thinking much as the same thing as runningout of altitude, airspeed and ideas all at the same time. I am yet to understandwhy people spend hundreds of hours putting Chitty Chitty Bang Bang stylepoints on every detail of their plane, but are unwilling to do 10 minutes ofCG planning. To each their own, I only want to be in charge of my own life,I think people should be allowed to do what they want. I accept that some peopledon't like thinking about planes, I am just not one of those people.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------I fully understand the concept of wanting to hold on to "How things were", treasuringolder stuff, times where the world didn't change by the hour. Most of thestuff I own is old, my ideas are old, I live on a little grass strip in a simplesetting and fly old planes for a reason. But I can treasure old and classic,but understand it and use it correctly also. In December I won a shootingmatch with a 98 year old .30-06. It was satisfying for a century old machinedefeat a lot of new equipment. It took nothing away from this feeling to knowthat I took the rifle to a qualified armorer a week earlier and had it head spacedon elaborate tooling, nor did the fact I was shooting modern rounds ruinthe victory. In the same way, I hold that you can enjoy flying a 1930s designand savor the experience, and that it will detract nothing if the plane had it'sweight and balance done a week earlier on electronic scales using data andcalculations collected by some jackass in Florida. -----------------------------------------------------Remember that you can go flying and enjoy a little taste of the 1930s, but I pointout that you can't really get there without the "Three P's" (Poverty, Polioand Prejudice) Maybe the goal is to enjoy the best things that came in the 1930'snot to actually try to recreate the decade. The Salk vaccine didn't ruinchildhood and looking at the possibility of modifying incidence on planes withdifferent airfoils, engines and weights isn't going to ruin Pietenpols either.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A65-8
OK, I have 108 hour left until I leave for Brodhead, I have two engine to buildand test run, a trailer to pack, and about 100 other things to do so this isthe last comment on the topic....----------------------------------------------------------------Dave Aldrich's comments above are right on the money, comes as little surprise,he is a very practical and clear thinking guy with a background in flying thatexceeds that of myself and most other Piet-peanut gallery people by a factorof 100X or so. Go back and read his simple laid out thoughts if you want to understandwhat the data collection could do for a builder. If you don't like theidea of thinking or discussing these topics. use the delete key, don't speakto me a Brodhead, and merrily go back to a world were I don't exist. I do thisall the time, example, I don't read a single word that "J-Mac" the EAA's editorwrites, and I don't watch TV news because my world is better when these thingsdon't exist to me. It is your life, your day, your minutes have them yourway......just make sure that you will not later need to know anything we learnby doing this or any other project like the CG stuff, which BTW I have beentold "ruined" Pietenpol building by "bringing math into it," ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Before one more person types the phrase "Just build it according to the plans",they should take a good look at the size of the rock in their hand and the glasshouse they are living in. I could be a jackass and point out that the majorityof people who write that don't have a plane/project that looks much likethe 1929-33 plans, nor the updates, nor what I call the "Living Plans", the lastOriginal. So please explain to me why a guy with brakes on a straight axle,or shoulder belts, or a certified engine, or flying outside 15-20", or with electricstart on his Corvair, or with a leaf spring tail wheel or a host of otherthings not in the plans, feels absolutely justified when he tells anotherman that he should not be allowed to change the incidence of his wing one degree...becausethat wouldn't be "according to the plans."--------------------------------------------------------------------------Chris Roush has a good looking plane with an innovative engine and I have nevermet him, but he sure sounds like a good cat. His plane has only logged a handfulof flights in 9 months, and it has a frustrating issue that is standing betweenhim and a lot of good times, something small no doubt, but the answer isn'twritten down on a piece of paper for him to read and apply the correction......notwritten down yet, that is, but hopefully it will be when we are donewith this project. Now, just imagine if that stupid piece of paper already existed5 years ago....Chris might have a 100 hours on the plane by now and packingit up for the trip to Brodhead, because it would have flown hands off on flight#1. Please explain to me how it is more noble and productive to sit in aglass house and type the phrase "Just build it to the plans" than it is to assistus in typing the notes on the piece of paper that will allow all futurebuilders to avoid getting into Chris's position.--------------------------------------------------------------------When Ryan and I did the CG project, we didn't change anything, redesign anything,or make any new plans at all, although I was accused of this by glass housepeople. All we did was take the CG range straight off BHP's notes, gathered somesamples, and did some example calculations. Realistically, We were the peoplechampioning following the plans, but a lot of the push back against that projectcame from people who's planes were flying at CG's of 21", people who likedto type "Just build it according to the plans", something they clearly didn'tdo themselves. Who is the heretic in that debate?-----------------------------------------------------------------BHP didn't say NEVER CHANGE THE INCIDENCE on the plans in all capitol letters,but funny, he did say NEVER FLY WITH CG AFT OF 20" in all caps, right on the plans.Please tell me how the imaginary first phrase is to be defended to the death,but the real second one had a weak following at best? I was motivated todo the CG project because 5 people I knew put a Pietenpol on it's back in threeyears, and 4 out of the 5 people who did this, didn't understand that the factthey were using the 10" axle location from the no-brakes 1929 plans with aset of brakes was the driving force. I also met several people who were flyingPiets that complained they were chronically tail heavy, and W&B showed theseplane to be out the aft limit....now the good part.....nearly every one of thesepeople claimed they had "just built it according to the plans." I can lookback through the archives of this list and see these people asking questions,and of course the glass house club, people with no data or anything constructiveto say then or now, always felt obligated to chime in "Just build it accordingto plans!" and so those people for lack of a little set of notes, got startedon the work that would lead them directly to a field where they unbuckledtheir seat belt and banged their head on the ground. I have a hard time seeinghow my work to avoid people being in that position has me "ruining" Pietenpolbuilding.------------------------------------------------------------------------I fully get that there are many people who just like the Idea of "Flying low andslow and not doing a lot on math stuff", and that these people can be deeplyoffended by the things I write, say and think. I get it because it is a two waystreet, I think of Low, slow and not thinking much as the same thing as runningout of altitude, airspeed and ideas all at the same time. I am yet to understandwhy people spend hundreds of hours putting Chitty Chitty Bang Bang stylepoints on every detail of their plane, but are unwilling to do 10 minutes ofCG planning. To each their own, I only want to be in charge of my own life,I think people should be allowed to do what they want. I accept that some peopledon't like thinking about planes, I am just not one of those people.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------I fully understand the concept of wanting to hold on to "How things were", treasuringolder stuff, times where the world didn't change by the hour. Most of thestuff I own is old, my ideas are old, I live on a little grass strip in a simplesetting and fly old planes for a reason. But I can treasure old and classic,but understand it and use it correctly also. In December I won a shootingmatch with a 98 year old .30-06. It was satisfying for a century old machinedefeat a lot of new equipment. It took nothing away from this feeling to knowthat I took the rifle to a qualified armorer a week earlier and had it head spacedon elaborate tooling, nor did the fact I was shooting modern rounds ruinthe victory. In the same way, I hold that you can enjoy flying a 1930s designand savor the experience, and that it will detract nothing if the plane had it'sweight and balance done a week earlier on electronic scales using data andcalculations collected by some jackass in Florida. -----------------------------------------------------Remember that you can go flying and enjoy a little taste of the 1930s, but I pointout that you can't really get there without the "Three P's" (Poverty, Polioand Prejudice) Maybe the goal is to enjoy the best things that came in the 1930'snot to actually try to recreate the decade. The Salk vaccine didn't ruinchildhood and looking at the possibility of modifying incidence on planes withdifferent airfoils, engines and weights isn't going to ruin Pietenpols either.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A65-8
Pietenpol-List: Re: A65-8
Original Posted By: "AircamperN11MS"
Gene,I sent you a email. If you can keep a eye out for it and make sure it doesn't goto spam or something.Thanks RobRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A65-8
Gene,I sent you a email. If you can keep a eye out for it and make sure it doesn't goto spam or something.Thanks RobRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A65-8
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: Lawrence Williams
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________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:49:49 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
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________________________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:49:49 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
John,Welcome. There are at least one or two builders that have built their aircraftand did not fly until the latter part of the build so you are in good company.I wish you and your dad the best as you build.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
John,Welcome. There are at least one or two builders that have built their aircraftand did not fly until the latter part of the build so you are in good company.I wish you and your dad the best as you build.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead rigging project - 2014
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
Larry,Same place it was the last time you asked.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/imag ... __________
Larry,Same place it was the last time you asked.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GAUSMC, USMCR, ATPBVD DVD PDQ BBQRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/imag ... __________